BANCROFT 
LIBRARY 

•O 

THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 


I    NO.  3 

Plural  Marriage  In    J 
America 

A  Critical  Examination 


By  Pre..  Joseph  Smith 


The  Herald  Publishing  House 
Lamoni,  Iowa 


10  IS 31 
ORIGIN  OF  AMERICAN   POLYGAMY. 

THE  reply'  to  my  article  in  the  Arena  for 
August,  1902,  by  President  Joseph  F.  Smith, 
of  the  Utah  polygamous  church,  in  the  Arena 
for  November,  1902,  has  at  least  made  one  thing 
plain.  He  states  on  page  493  of  his  paper,  "that  in 
the  earlier  days  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of 
Latter  Day  Saints  monogamic  marriage  was  advo- 
cated and  upheld;  but  no  one  has  disputed  that." 

On  page  494  this  writer  further  states:  "Careful 
reading  of  the  law  of  God  to  the  church  in  these 
latter  days,  will  show  that,  while  its  members  were 
then  required  to  practice  monogamic  marriage,  the 
declaration  as  quoted  by  Mr.  Smith,  that  'one  man 
should  have  one  wife,  and  one  woman  but  one  hus- 
band,7 bears  the  implication  that  a  man  might 
possibly  be  permitted  at  some  time  to  have  more 
than  one  wife,  while  a  woman  was  to  have  'but  one 
husband.' " 

Here  are  two  direct  admissions  from  the  present 
head  of  the  dominant  church  in  Utah  that  the 
law  of  God  regulating  the  domestic  relation  in 
the  church  at  its  institution  and  subsequently  was 
monogamic. 

Attention  is  called  to  these  admissions  for  the 
reason  that  in  my  article  in  the  August  Arena  the 
scriptural  evidences  taken  from  the  books  consti- 
tuting the  standard  works  of  the  church  were  clearly 
and  definitely  stated;  and  while  Mr.  Smith  states 
on  page  497  of  his  article  that  his  "reply  to  the 
leader  of  the  'Reorganized  Church'  is  not  intended 
as  an  argument  in  favor  of  plural  marriage,"  we 
fail  to  see  how  the  ordinary  reader  will  hesitate  to 
take  his  article  as  being  an  effort  to  defend  against 
the  attack  upon  Utah  polygamy  by  a  plain  state- 
ment of  facts,  made  by  the  son  of  the  man  charged 
with  being  the  one  who  introduced  polygamy  into 
the  church. 

Mr.  Smith,  of  Utah,  wrote  in  reference  to  the 
question  whether  the  dogma  and  practice  of  plural 
marriage  are  right  or  wrong,  "That  is  not  the  ques- 
tion at  issue."  (See  page  497.)  The  gentleman's 
pardon  ia  craved ;  that  is  the  question  at  issue,  and 


I  ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY. 

has  been  ever  since  the  sons  of  the  Prophet  Joseph 
Smith  took  the  field  in  advocacy  of  the  religion  of 
their  father,  and  against  any  and  every  perversion 
of  it  as  a  consequence. 

In  order  to  break  the  force  of  the  article  in  the 
August  Arena,  Mr.  Smith,  of  Utah,  attacks  the 
motive  of  the  writer,  assuming  that  the  purpose  of 
that  article  was  "to  brand  with  willful  falsehood  all 
his,  Joseph  Smith's,  successors  in  the  prophetic  and 
presiding  office,  and  also  a  large  number  of  men  and 
women  of  unimpeachable  character  and  high  stand- 
ing in  the  church,"  etc. 

The  contention  of  the  sons  of  Joseph  Smith,  the 
putative  founder  of  the  church  under  consideration 
in  these  papers,  is  and  has  been  this :  That,  as  the 
laws  of  God,  found  in  the  Bible,  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon, and  the  later  revelations  to  the  church,  were 
given  to  constitute  the  rules  of  both  faith  and  prac- 
tice, upon  which  the  church  was  to  be  built  and  per- 
petuated, as  a  consequence,  God  would  not  give  to 
the  church  through  Joseph  Smith  any  command- 
ment or  rule  of  faith  and  practice  which  would  con- 
flict with  the  laws  he  had  already  given;  or  that 
would  require  the  performance  of  any  act  by  which 
those  laws  would  be  disregarded  or  broken. 

To  make  this  point  clear  the  following  is  cited : 

"Let  no  man  break  the  laws  of  the  land,  for  he 
that  keepeth  the  laws  of  God  hath  no  need  to  break 
the  laws  of  the  land;  wherefore  be  subject  to  the 
powers  that  be,  until  He  reigns  whose  right  it  is  to 
reign,  and  subdues  all  enemies  under  his  feet. 
Behold,  the  laws  which  ye  have  received  from  my 
hand  are  the  laws  of  the  church,  and  in  this  light  ye 
shall  hold  them  forth.  Behold,  here  is  wisdom."— 
Doctrine  and  Covenants  58:  5. 

"Thou  shalt  take  the  things  which  thou  hast 
received,  which  have  been  given  unto  thee  in  my 
scriptures  for  a  law,  to  be  my  law,  to  govern  my 
church;  and  he  that  doth  according  to  these  things, 
shall  be  saved,  and  he  that  doeth  them  not  shall  be 
damned,  if  he  continues." — Doctrine  and  Cove- 
nants 42:  16. 

In  the  legendary  teaching  of  the  church  the  Book 


ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY.  8 

of  Mormon  was  called  the  "new  covenant."  As  a 
revelation  it  was  made  binding  upon  the  church  in 
the  following: 

"And  this  condemnation  resteth  upon  the  chil- 
dren of  Zion,  even  all;  and  they  shall  remain  under 
this  condemnation  until  they  repent  and  remember 
the  new  covenant,  even  the  Book  of  Mormon  and 
the  former  commandments  which  I  have  given 
them,  not  only  to  say,  but  to  do  according  to  that 
which  I  have  written,  that  they  may  bring  forth 
fruit  meet  for  their  Father's  kingdom,"  etc. — Doc- 
trine and  Covenants  83 :  8. 

This  establishes  the  fact  that  the  laws  to  the 
church  were  understood  to  have  been  given  for  its 
government  until  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  and 
that  in  addition  thereto  no  commands  would  be 
given  which  would  require  the  members  of  the 
church  to  disregard  or  break  the  laws  of  the  land. 

The  contention  of  the  sons  of  Joseph  Smith  is 
further;  that  the  laws  of  the  church,  given  as  the 
people  all  believed  through  the  principle  of  revela- 
tion, would  not  be  controverted,  nor  set  aside  by 
contradictory  revelation.  Hence,  that  Joseph  Smith 
could  not  have  either  taught  or  practiced  contrary 
to  the  rule  of  marriage  which  Mr.  Smith,  of  Utah, 
now  admits  was  monogamic.  To  have  done  this  he 
would  have  to  disregard  and  disobey  the  commands 
of  the  Lord,  as  he  and  his  associates,  including  his 
brother  Hyrum,  understood  them. 

The  Book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants  is  a  book  of 
church  law,  rules,  and  commandments.  It  was  pub- 
lished first  in  Kirtland  (not  Kirkland),  Ohio,  in 
1835.  It  contained  the  declaration  of  indorsement 
of  the  monogamous  marriage  system,  which  is 
"opposed  to  polygamy."  This  declaration  was 
given  in  the  August  Arena,  and  the  reason  that  it  is 
cited  again  is  that  the  President  of  the  Utah  church 
now  admits  that  it  was  the  rule  in  the  earlier  days 
of  the  church.  That  article  was  to  show  when  this 
rule  was  abrogated,  and  the  polygamous  marriage 
system  introduced  into  the  practice  of  the  church 
over  which  President  Brigham  Young  presided,  and 
which  the  present  head  of  that  church,  Joseph  F. 


4  ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY. 

Smith,  declares  to  be  the  same  church  organized  in 
1830.  It  is  a  fact  that  this  section  adopting  the 
monogamous  system  was  published  continuously  in 
the  editions  of  this  book  down  to  the  fall  of  1876; 
by  John  Taylor,  in  the  United  States,  in  1845  and 
1846;  by  Orson  Pratt,  in  Liverpool,  England,  in 
1852  and  1854;  and  by  Albert  Carrington,  at  Islington, 
England,  in  1869.  It  was  publicly  held  out  as  the 
law  from  August  29,  1852,  the  date  on  which  Presi- 
dent Brigham  Young  introduced  the  so-called  reve- 
lation on  celestial  marriage,  until  ordered  out, 
presumedly  by  President  Young  in  1876,  without 
any  public  statement  to  show  that  it  was  by  act  of 
the  church.  Who  was  to  blame  for  all  these  years 
of  public  affirmation  of  the  monogamic  rule  after 
the  death  of  Joseph  Smith? 

It  is  for  reasons  like  these  that  the  son  of  Joseph 
Smith  "prefers  to  believe"  that  his  father  did 
neither  teach  nor  practice  plural  marriage,  or 
polygamy.  The  fact  that  Joseph  Smith  had  no 
children  born  in  polygamy,  has  been  affirmed  by 
every  writer  of  note  who  has  written  with  any 
knowledge  of  the  situation.  If  the  son  is  called 
upon  for  evidence,  he  is  prepared  to  cite  the  public 
statements  of  President  George  Q.  Cannon,  one  of 
the  Presidency  with  Brigham  Young,  John  Taylor, 
and  Wilford  Woodruff,  associate  with  President 
Joseph  F.  Smith.  President  Brigham  Young 
admitted  this  to  William  Hep  worth  Dixon,  as 
stated  by  that  writer  in  his  work  "New  America,'5 
in  chapter  thirty  of  that  work.  If  other  proof  is 
wanted,  it  will  be  forthcoming. 

The  chief  contention  of  the  sons  of  the  Prophet 
Joseph  Smith,  however,  is  not  that  their  father  was 
not  a  polygamist,  but  is,  that  whether  he  was  or  was 
not,  the  dogma  and  practice  are  contrary  to  scrip- 
ture, ancient  and  modern,  and  are  wrong,  being 
contrary  to  the  laws  of  both  God  and  the  United 
States.  That  being  contrary  to  the  fundamental 
and  organic  laws  of  the  church,  neither  the  dogma 
nor  the  practice  could  in  any  sense  become  legiti- 
mately the  faith  and  practice  of  the  church.  No 
matter  who  the  human  author  of  the  doctrine  may 


ORIGIN  OP  POLYGAMY,  5 

have  been,  it  was  unlawful  in  every  sense  of  the 
word,  and  is  yet. 

The  decision  by  the  Court  of  Appeals  by  which 
the  Reorganized  Church  was  denied  possession  of 
the  Temple  Lot  in  Independence,  Missouri,  is  not  a 
reversal  of  the  decision  of  Judge  John  F.  Philips, 
of  the  United  States  Circuit  Court,  that  the  Reor- 
ganized Church  was  in  legal  succession  to  the  church 
organized  in  1830;  but  is  that  the  said  church  had 
slept  upon  its  rights,  and  did  not  begin  its  suit  soon 
enough;  technical  ground  only. 

The  President  of  the  Utah  church  states  on  page 
492  of  the  Arena,  that  the  President  of  the  Reor- 
ganized Church  "and  his  brothers  have  visited  Salt 
Lake  City,  and  have  met  ladies  who  assured  him 
that  they  were  united  in  marriage  to  his  father  in 
the  city  of  Nauvoo,  but,  to  use  his  own  language,  he 
'prefers  to  believe  the  contrary.' " 

The  President  of  the  Reorganized  Church  and  his 
brother  Alexander  have  been  in  Utah  together  but 
twice,  and  they  both  affirm  that  at  no  time  and  at  no 
place,  in  Salt  Lake  City,  or  elsewhere,  did  they  meet 
"ladies  who  assured  him  that  they  were  united  in 
marriage  to  his  father;''  or  lived  with  him  as  such 
wives.  There  are  neither  "living  witnesses," 
"written  documents,"  nor  "indisputable  circum- 
stances'* to  sustain  such  an  assertion. 

It  is  this  persistent  resort  to  misstatement  and 
falsehood  that  has  caused  the  sons  of  Joseph  Smith 
to  refuse  to  believe  those  who  continue  to  utter  them, 
and  "prefer  to  believe"  those  witnesses  whom  they 
know  were  truthful,  and  the  long  array  of  facts 
which  has  come  within  their  knowledge.  President 
Smith  of  the  Reorganised  Church  was  in  Salt  Lake 
City  in  November  and  December,  1876.  He  spoke 
in  the  Liberal  Institute  there,  and  then  and  there 
challenged  the  evidences  and  threw  the  burden 
of  proof  on  the  advocates  of  polygamy.  He  was 
there  again  in  1885,  and  spoke  in  the  Opera  House, 
and  again  threw  down  the  gage  of  defense.  He 
was  there  again  in  1887,  and  in  1889  spent  six  months 
in  Utah,  Montana,  and  Idaho,  and  spoke  in  various 
places  in  Utah,  from  Beaver  on  the  south  to  Logan 


6  ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY. 

on  the  north,  and  in  each  of  the  places  the  same 
claims  to  the  right  of  an  examination  of  the  evi- 
dences inculpating  his  father  in  the  introduction  of 
Utah  polygamy  were  made  by  him.  In  not  one 
instance  was  there  produced  in  public,  any  woman, 
or  women,  as  witnesses  who  made  affirmations  to 
being  wives  to  Joseph  Smith ;  nor  was  there  a  man 
or  woman  produced  for  whom  it  was  claimed  he  or 
she  was  a  child  of  Joseph  Smith  in  polygamous  mar- 
riage. If  it  was  known  to  so  large  a  number  of  peo- 
ple, as  it  is  asserted  in  the  November  Arena,  why 
were  not  these  persons  presented  and  the  son 
of  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith  given  the  benefit  of 
their  open  testimony  and  the  privilege  of  cross- 
questioning  them  before  the  public? 

In  the  August  Arena  the  question  of  veracity  was 
not  raised ;  a  plain  statement  of  facts  was  given, 
and  if  this  threw  suspicion  upon  persons  connected 
with  the  church  in  Utah  after  Joseph  Smith's  death, 
it  is  but  the  result  always  following  when  the  truth 
is  told.  In  the  eyes  of  the  sons  of  Joseph  Smith 
there  is  no  virtue  or  loveliness  in  the  dogma  or 

Eractice  of  polygamy  or  plural  marriage.  They 
ave  neither  fear  of  nor  reverence  for  the  false  in 
religion.  They  have  not  in  the  past,  through  either 
fear  or  favor,  stayed  their  opposition  to  the  doctrine 
which  has  brought  the  name  of  their  father  into  dis- 
repute and  cast  reproach  and  shame  upon  the  faith 
in  which  and  for  which  he  lived  a  stormy  life  and 
was  cruelly  murdered.  The  claim  for  unimpeacha- 
bility of  witnesses  has  no  weight  with  these  sons 
when  put  into  the  scales  with  the  word  of  God  and 
the  facts  known  to  them;  nor  does  it  matter  to  them 
what  the  positions  these  witnesses  may  have  held  or 
now  hold.  There  is  none  of  them  but  what  at  the 
time  of  testifying  was  a  polygamist  or  an  apologist 
fcherefor, — the  men  as  husbands,  the  women  as 
wives, — in  contravention  of  the  law  of  God  ad- 
mitted by  them  to  have  been  the  rule  of  mar- 
riage in  the  church  in  the  lifetime  of  Joseph 
Smith.  All  of  them  were  accomplices  in  guilt, 
if  guilt  it  was.  All  knew,  or  should  have  known, 
that  they  had  broken  the  laws  of  Illinois,  if 


ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY.  1 

the  things  stated  by  them  were  true.  And  this 
is  tacitly  admitted  in  the  statement  that  the  church 
in  Utah,  after  a  "long  contest  in  the  courts," 
"decided  to  submit  to  the  laws  of  the  land,"  and 
that  no  more  plural  marriages  were  performed  now. 
But  those  who  had  been  married  polygamously 
have  been  permitted  to  "practice  plural  marriage* ' 
by  living  with  their  polygamous  wives,  by  reason 
of  the  faulty  construction  of  the  Enabling  Act,  the 
result  either  of  purpose  or  carelessness  in  framing  it. 

It  is  not  true  that  the  persons  spoken  of  in  the 
revelation  referred  to  in  the  November  article  "were 
well  known  by  a  large  number  of  trustworthy  wit- 
nesses to  have  been  wives"  to  Joseph  Smith  in 
Nauvoo,  "in  every  sense  of  that  relationship." 

Franklin  D.  Richards,  historian  of  the  Utah 
church,  in  an  article  furnished  to  Gay  Brothers 
&  Company,  for  their  work,  "What  the  World 
Believes,"  published  by  them  in  New  York,  in  1888, 
has  this  peculiar  statement,  on  page  600: 

"Joseph  Smith's  first  wife  was  Emma  Hale,  who 
was  married  to  him  January  18,  1827.  Of  the  names 
or  number  of  his  other  wives,  as  also  the  dates  of 
their  marriage  to  him,  we  are  not  informed." 

If  there  was  anything  of  the  kind  going  on  it  was 
in  secret,  and  those  marrying  or  being  sealed  knew 
that  they  were  criminals  before  the  law,  providing 
that  the  sealing  named  carried  the  idea  of  living  in 
wedlock  as  in  legal  marriage.  If  it  was  in  vogue  at 
all  it  bore  the  stamp  of  the  secret  bringing  in  of 
heresy,  the  deceptive  character  of  which  is  seen  in 
the  terms  used  by  Historian  Richards,  "married  or 
sealed  to  him."  The  same  shifty  parenthesis  was 
introduced  in  the  affidavits  to  which  reference  is 
made  on  page  491  of  the  November  article  in  the 
Arena.  The  parenthetical  ("or  sealed")  showing 
the  unreliable  and  deceptive  mental  reservation,  by 
which  one  thing  was  made  to  do  duty  for  another. 
When  Joseph  Smith  was  killed  and  his  body  lay  in 
his  own  house,  where  thousands  viewed  it,  there 
were  no  family  mourners  gathered  by  the  side  of  his 
open  coffin  except  his  wife,  his  only  wife,  Emma, 
and  her  sons,  and  an  adopted  daughter.  Not  one 


8  ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY. 

of  these  so-called  wives  was  there,  or  known,  or 
recognized  as  of  right  there.  The  witnesses  pro- 
duced in  the  suit  referred  to  who  gave  evidence,  all 
stated  that  they  were  not  at  the  funeral  as  or  known 
to  be  his  wives. 

The  November  Arena  article  states  on  page  496 
that  the  "  'Reorganized*  church  came  into  existence 
in  1861."  This  is  an  error,  as  the  first  conference 
was  held  June  12, 1852,  two  months  before  President 
Brigham  Young  introduced  the  so-called  revelation 
on  "the  eternity  of  the  marriage  covenant,"  in 
August  of  that  same  year. 

It  is  a  well-known  principle  of  law,  ecclesiastical 
as  well  as  secular,  that  the  organic  laws  and  rules  of 
government  of  a  religious  body  can  not  be  changed 
by  either  a  small  or  large  number  of  its  membership, 
to  the  exclusion  of  and  the  taking  away  of  the  rights 
of  those  who  may  choose  to  remain  true  to  the  open 
declarations  of  faith  of  the  church  at  its  origin. 
And  that  if  any  divergence  from  the  original  faith 
is  attempted,  either  privily  or  openly,  those  who 
remain  with  the  original  articles  are  the  church, 
whether  few  or  many.  This  law  is  as  old  as  the 
Exodus,  when  Caleb  and  Joshua  were  the  faithful 
and  the  rest  perished  in  the  wilderness.  The  sons 
of  Joseph  Smith  and  their  associates  are  the  origi- 
nal church  in  this  contention. 

There  remain  a  few  features  of  the  "Reply"  to  my 
article  in  the  August  Arena  which,  from  their  char- 
acter, it  is  a  duty  to  notice. 

On  page  493  the  writer  states  that  the  so-called 
revelation  which  is  the  alleged  basis  of  Utah 
polgamy  "bears  the  impress  throughout  of  the  spirit 
and  language  of  the  other  and  earlier  revelations 
through  Joseph  Smith,  as  published  in  his  lifetime 
in  the  Book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants." 

What  a  statement  this  is,  following  the  admission 
made  on  the  same  page,  that  "monogamic  marriage 
was  advocated  and  upheld,"  "in  the  earlier  days  of 
the  church;"  and  that  "no  one  has  disputed  that." 

In  January,  1831,  the  following  was  given:  "And 
that  ye  might  escape  the  power  of  the  enemy,  and 
be  gathered  unto  me  a  righteous  people,  without 


ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY.  9 

spot  and  blameless:  wherefore,  for  this  cause  I 
gave  unto  you  the  commandment,  that  ye  should  go 
to  the  Ohio;  and  there  I  will  give  unto  you  my 
law." — Doctrine  and  Covenants  38:  7. 

The  law  here  referred  to  was  given  in  February, 
1831,  and  contains  this  direct  command  to  the 
church:  "Thou  shalt  love  thy  wife  with  all  thy 
heart,  and  shall  cleave  unto  her  and  none  else;  and 
he  that  looketh  upon  a  woman  to  lust  after  her, 
shall  deny  the  faith,  and  shall,  not  have  the  Spirit; 
and  if  he  repents  not,  he  shall  be  cast  out.  Thou 
shalt  not  commit  adultery." — Doctrine  and  Cove- 
nants 42:  7. 

The  "spirit  and  language"  of  this  revelation  are 
monogamous ;  the  spirit  and  language  of  the  reve- 
lation referred  to  are  polygamous.  The  language, 
"love  thy  wife  with  all  thy  heart,  and  shall  cleave 
unto  her  and  none  else,"  can  not  be  construed  to 
mean,  Thou  shalt  cleave  unto  thy  wives.  The  first 
requires  faithfulness  to  one  wife;  the  other  permits 
and  enjoins  the  having  more  than  one  wife. 

In  March,  1831,  the  following  was  given,  and 
shows  conclusively  "the  spirit  and  language"  of 
what  was  given  in  February:  "And  again,  I  say 
unto  you,  that  whoso  forbiddeth  to  marry,  is  not 
ordained  of  God,  for  marriage  is  ordained  of  God 
unto  man;  wherefore  it  is  lawful  that  he  should 
have  one  wife,  and  they  twain  shall  be  one  flesh, 
and  all  this  that  the  earth  might  answer  the  end  of 
its  creation;  and  that  it  might  be  filled  with  the 
measure  of  man,  according  to  his  creation  before 
the  world  was  made."  —  Doctrine  and  Cove- 
nants 49:  3. 

This  "bears  the  impress  of  the  spirit  and  lan- 
guage" of  Genesis  2:24;  Malachi  2:15:  Matthew 
19:5,6;  Mark  10:  5,  9. 

These  texts  from  the  earlier  revelations  and  the 
Scriptures  provide  for  but  one  companion  in  wed- 
lock, whereas  the  revelation  to  which  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Utah  church  refers  as  being  like  them 
"in  spirit  and  language"  provides  for  a  plurality  of 
wives — so  understood  and  urged  by  him. 

There  is  a  wide  divergence  "in  the  spirit  and  Ian- 


10  ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY. 

guage"  of  the  revelation  to  which  Mr.  Smith  of  the 
Utah  church  refers  from  the  "spirit  and  language" 
of  these  earlier  revelations.  Those  of  the  earlier 
days  enjoin  the  observance  of  the  rule,  one  com- 
panion in  wedlock  for  either  man  or  woman;  the 
latter  abrogates  this  rule  and  establishes  polygamy. 
The  one  provides  for  the  lawful  union  with  one 
Woman  as  a  wife,  the  other  for  an  unlawful  plu- 
rality. 

In  the  article  in  the  November  Arena  President 
Smith,  of  Utah,  refers  to  a  quotation  from  the  Book 
of  Mormon  limiting  the  men  of  that  time  to  mo- 
nogamy, and  states  of  it,  "They  were  limited  to  one 
wife  each."  He  states  as  a  reason  for  this  that 
"they  were  too  wicked  and  abominable  to  be  per- 
mitted to  enter  into  those  sacred  relations  and  cove- 
nants comprehended  in  the  divine  order  of  celestial 
or  plural  marriage."  ".  .  .  The  Book  of  Mormon 
declares  that  the  Nephites  of  that  early  period 
should  have  but  one  wife." 

In  an  effort  to  escape  the  inevitable  conclusion 
that  would  follow  in  the  mind  of  the  reader  of  my 
article  in  the  August  Arena,  that  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon contained  positive  inhibition  of  polygamy, 
this  writer  in  its  defense  resorts  to  a  clumsy  sub- 
terfuge by  quoting  in  italics  a  portion  which  he 
states  I  "carefully  left  out;"  but  which  he  has  care- 
lessly put  in,  upon  the  plea  that  had  I  quoted  it, 
it  would  have  "taken  away  the  entire  ground  of" 
my  position.  He  assumes  that  the  command  to 
have  but  one  wife  was  to  that  people  and  to  them 
alone,  but  that  the  italicized  quotation  is  "an  inti- 
mation that  a  further  and  different  command  might 
be  given  at  another  time  and  to  another  people, 
and  that  the  law  then  declared  was  but  temporary." 
To  further  this  assumption,  while  he  admits  that 
the  members  of  the  church  were  "required  to  prac- 
tice monogamic  marriage,  the  declaration,  that  'one 
man  should  have  one  wife,  and  one  woman  but  one 
husband,'  bears  the  implication  that  a  man  might 
possibly  be  permitted  at  some  time  to  have  more 
than  one  wife,  while  a  woman  was  to  have  but  one 
husband." 


ORIGIN  OP  POLYGAMY.  H 

This  is  a  bit  of  sophistry  so  transparent  as  to 
cause  a  wonder  that  a  man  should  write  it  for  those 
who  read  the  English  language.  First:  The  quo- 
tation from  the  Book  of  Mormon  which  I  gave  in  the 
August  Arena,  page  162,  clearly  states  what  the  con- 
duct complained  of  as  wicked  and  abominable  was, 
to- wit,  "This  people  begin  to  wax  in  iniquity;  they 
understand  not  the  scriptures:  for  they  seek  to  excuse 
themselves  in  committing  whoredoms,  because  of 
the  things  which  were  written  concerning  David,  and 
Solomon  his  son."  This  arraignment  is  but  pre- 
liminary to  the  statement  of  gross  iniquity  which 
follows:  "Behold,  David  and  Solomon  truly  had 
many  wives  and  concubines,  which  thing  was  abomi- 
nable before  me,  saith  the  Lord." 

There  is  not  a  sentence  in  the  whole  quotation 
given,  nor  in  the  chapter  of  the  book  that  warrants 
the  statement  that  the  people  were  "too  wicked  and 
abominable"  in  other  directions  than  in  polygamy 
and  concubinage  to  be  allowed  to  practice  plural 
marriages,  etc.  Further  than  this,  the  "ancient 
inhibition"  has  a  direct  "bearing  upon  the  present 
age"  and  "the  people  of  these  times,"  especially 
those  to  whom  the  Book  of  Mormon  came.  Note 
what  I  have  already  quoted  from  the  revelations  to 
the  church.  In  one  of  the  revelations  given  "in  the 
earlier  days  of  the  church,"  the  Book  of  Mormon  is 
called  the  new  covenant,  and  because  that  work  wae 
treated  lightly  they  were  reproached.  The  cause  is 
as  follows:  "And  this  condemnation  resteth  upon 
the  children  of  Zion,even  all;  and  they  shalicemain 
under  this  condemnation  until  they  repent  and 
remember  the  new  covenant  even  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon and  the  former  commandments  which  I  have 
given  them,  not  only  to  say,  but  to  do  according  to 
that  which  I  have  written." — Doctrine  and  Cove- 
nants 83: 8.  This  was  given  in  September, 
1832.  The  former  commandments  included  the  one 
on  marriage: 

"And  again,  the  elders,  priests,  and  teachers  of 
this  church  shall  teach  the  principles  of  my  gospel 
which  are  in  the  Bible  and  the  Book  of  Mormon,  in 
the  which  is  the  fullness  of  the  gospel;  and  they 


12  ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY. 

shall  observe  the  covenants  and  church  articles  to 
do  them,  and  these  shall  be  their  teachings,  as  they 
shall  be  directed  by  the  Spirit." — Doctrine  and 
Covenants  42:5. 

The  commands  to  the  church  place  the  Bible  and 
the  Book  of  Mormon  in  juxtaposition  in  importance 
for  the  government  of  the  church.  The  practice  of 
polygamy  and  concubinage  of  David  and  Solomon 
were  abominable  before  God  in  the  Nephites,  and 
by  reason  of  the  fact  that  the  record  of  that  people 
has  come  to  the  Mormon  people  and  its  teaching 
enforced  by  restatement  and  revelation,  polygamy  is 
as  abominable  before  him  now  as  it  was  then. 

Corroborative  of  this  note  the  following: 

"Behold,  the  Lamanites,  your  brethren,  whom  ye 
hate,  because  of  their  filthiness  and  the  cursings 
which  have  come  upon  their  skins,  are  more  right- 
eous than  you:  for  they  have  not  forgotten  the 
commandment  of  the  Lord,  which  was  given  unto 
our  fathers,  that  they  should  have,  save  it  were  one 
wife;  and  concubines  they  should  have  none;  and 
there  should  not  be  whoredoms  committed  among 
them."— Book  of  Mormon,  Jacob  2:  9. 

The  two  peoples  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  are 
placed  in  contrast  here,  the  Nephites,  polygamists; 
the  Lamanites,  monogamists.  Let  the  contrast  be 
drawn  again,  between  the  two  peoples — those  who 
are  polygamists  and  those  who  are  not. 

The  fact  that  the  teachings  of  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon are  binding  on  Latter  Day  Saints,  the  Utah 
church  as  well  as  all  others,  shows  the  folly  of  sup- 
posing that  the  italicized  quotation  intimates  the 
giving  of  a  different  law.  Second:  The  reason  for 
the  exodus  of  Lehi  and  family  from  Jerusalem  was: 

"Wherefore,  thus  saith  the  Lord,  I  have  led  this 
people  forth  out  of  the  land  of  Jerusalem,  by  the 
power  of  my  arm,  that  I  might  raise  up  unto  me  a 
righteous  branch  from  the  fruit  of  the  loins  of 
Joseph.  Wherefore,  I,  the  Lord  God,  will  not  suf- 
fer that  this  people  shall  do  like  unto  them  of  old." 
—Book  of  Mormon,  Jacob  2:  6. 

A  similar  reason  is  given  for  the  monogamic  mar- 
riage commanded  to  the  church  at  its  beginning: 


ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY.  18 

"And  that  ye  might  escape  the  power  of  the 
enemy,  and  be  gathered  unto  me  a  righteous  people, 
without  spot  and  blameless:  wherefore,  for  this 
cause  I  gave  unto  you  the  commandment,  that  ye 
should  go  to  the  Ohio;  and  there  I  will  give  unto 
you  my  law." — Doctrine  and  Covenants  38: 7. 

Precisely  the  same  reason  is  assigned  by  the 
Prophet  Malachi,  already  cited,  which  reads: 

"And  did  he  not  make  one?  Yet  had  he  the  resi- 
due of  the  Spirit.  And  wherefore  one?  That  he 
might  seek  a  godly  seed.  Therefore  take  heed  to 
your  spirit,  and  let  none  deal  treacherously  against 
the  wife  of  his  youth."-— Malachi  2: 15. 

It  is  strikingly  strange  that  with  all  these  evi- 
dences before  him  this  apologist  for  Utah  polygamy 
should  resort  to  such  shallow  evasions  as  he  has 
done  in  his  article  in  the  November  Arena.  The 
force  of  the  quotation  he  has  italicized  is  found  in 
the  terms,  "I  will  command  my  people,"  "where- 
fore this  people  shall  keep  my  commandments." 
President  Smith,  of  Utah,  is  guilty  of  another  sub- 
terfuge, which  is,  to  say  the  least,  pitiable  if  not 
contemptible.  He  seems  to  hold  that  the  sentence, 
"One  man  should  have  one  wife,  and  one  woman  but 
one  husband,"  restricts  the  woman  but  puts  no 
limitation  upon  the  man.  He  conveys  the  implica- 
tion that  the  sentence  was  so  worded  as  to  provide 
that  at  some  time  a  man  might  have  more  than  one 
wife,  and  a  woman  but  one  husband.  He  italicizes 
'  the  word  but  in  both  sentences.  The  rule  given  the 
church  in  1831  was,  "Wherefore,  it  is  lawful  that  he 
should  have  one  wife,  and  they  twain  shall  be  one 
flesh."  The  word  twain  bars  his  implication  in  this 
sentence,  "We  declare  that  we  believe  that  one  man 
should  have  one  wife;  and  one  woman  but  one  hus- 
band, except  in  case  of  death,  when  either  is  at  lib- 
erty to  marry  again."  In  this  case  the  words, 
"either  is  at  liberty  to  marry  again,"  bars  his 
implication  in  this  sentence.  It  is  lawful  for  a  man 
to  have  one  wife;  it  is  unlawful  for  him  to  have 
more  than  one,  or  to  marry  a  second  while  the  first 
is  living.  Mr.  Smith's  very  next  words  show  that 
he  knew  this  attempt  to  destroy  the  force  of  the 


14  ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY. 

restriction  was  not  a  good  one,  for  he  writes,  "Be  that 
as  it  may;"  that  is,  granted  that  it  is  a  valid 
restriction  (and  he  already  admitted  that),  a  change 
might  be  effected. 

Why  did  President  Brigham  Young  have  this 
restrictive  clause  taken  out  of  the  Book  of  Doctrine 
and  Covenants,  .if  the  position  taken  by  his  suc- 
cessor, Joseph  F.  Smith,  is  correct,  that  the  inhibi- 
tion found  in  it  did  not  conflict  with  the  revelation 
he  ordered  inserted  in  its  place? 

This  implication  so  clumsily  made,  is  one  of  the 
things  objected  to  by  the  sons  of  Joseph  Smith  in 
this  controversy.  It  assumes  the  position  that  the 
one  who  gave  the  revelations  and  commandments  to 
the  church  was  guilty  of  subtlety,  deception,  and 
double  dealing;  that  he  gave  laws  to  the  church 
that  were  intended  to  have  one  meaning  to  the 
world  and  another  to  the  church;  that  he  con- 
demned polygamy  as  a  crime  in  one  age  and  lauded 
it  as  a  virtue  in  another  age;  a  curse  and  an  abomi- 
nation in  one  people,  a  blessing  and  commendable 
in  another.  That  he,  Christ,  the  law-giver,  was 
changeable  in  character,  and  gave  a  rule  of  conduct 
to  be  followed  by  his  people  that  God  might  seek  a 
godly  seed;  a  righteous  people  upon  this  land,  and 
suddenly  changing  his  established  rule  of  virtue, 
uprightness,  and  chastity,  gave  another  and  contra- 
dictory law  directly  opposite  to  the  first.  Further 
than  this,  this  assumption  that  there  was  in  these 
revelations  that  I  have  cited,  and  in  the  declaration 
of  belief  made  by  the  church  in  1835,  a  cunningly 
devised  scheme  for  the  men  engaged  in  it  to  hold 
out  to  the  world  the  claim  for  the  chastity,  virtue, 
and  honor  of  both  men  and  women  in  honorable 
monogamous  marriage,  according  to  the  command 
of  God  and  agreeably  to  the  laws  and  institutions  of 
the  land  where  the  church  had  its  birth,  and  to 
engage  in  a  system  of  marriage  forbidden  in  the 
laws  of  God  and  punishable  under  the  laws  of  the 
land;  which  system  required  lives  of  secrecy, 
duplicity,  disregard  for  law,  a  covert  hiding  from 
publicity,  the  disregard  for  and  breaking  of  the 
covenants  of  marriage  solemnity  entered  into  with 


ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY.  15 

companions  who  are  ignorant  of  the  existence  of 
such  secret  systems,  and  helpless  to  redress  their 
injuries;— such  implication  makes  Joseph  Smith 
and  his  father,  mother,  brothers,  and  sisters  to  have 
been  parties  to  the  living  of  two-faced  lives,  one  to 
the  world  and  the  great  majority  of  the  church, 
the  other  to  the  few,  who,  like  themselves,  were 
enmeshed  in  their  iniquity.  The  apologist  for 
polygamy  may  believe  such  a  record  of  those  who 
may  be  dear  to  him,  but  the  sons  of  the  Prophet 
Joseph  Smith  will  not  so  believe,  unless  evidence  is 
presented  which  is  far  better  and  more  worthy  of 
credence  than  has  hitherto  been  submitted  to  their 
examination. 

Joseph  Smith  in  1838  denied  the  right  of  a  man  to 
two  or  more  wives;  Parley  P.  Pratt  denied  it  in 
1842;  John  Taylor,  who  succeeded  Brigham  Young, 
denied  it  in  November,  1844,  and  in  May,  1845;  John 
Taylor  denied  its  existence,  July  11,  1860.  Orson 
Pratt  preached  the  first  polygamous  sermon  to  the 
church,  August  29,  1852.  It  was  then  a  new  doc- 
trine. George  Q.  Cannon  said  June  11,  1871,  "Jos- 
eph and  Hyrum  Smith  were  persecuted  to  death 
previous  to  the  church  haying  any  knowledge  of  this 
doctrine " — plurality  of  wives. 

What  means  this  array  of  contradictory  evidence? 
It  can  not  mean  that  the  system  of  polygamy  came 
into  the  church  in  an  open,  clear,  and  comprehen- 
sive declaration  of  faith,  as  did  all  the  other  pro- 
visions of  the  gospel  known  to  the  church  between 
1830  and  the  death  of  Joseph  Smith.  It  can  mean 
only  that  the  dogma  and  practice  were  privily  intro- 
duced and  that  it  was  not  until  through  the  influ- 
ence of  President  Brigham  Young,  himself  a 
polgamist,  he  had  allied  unto  himself  some  of  the 
leading  men  of  the  church,  by  entangling  them  in 
the  like  practice,  and  eight  years  and  two  months 
after  the  death  of  Joseph  Smith,  and  at  Salt  Lake 
City,  Utah,  he  forced  the  dogma  upon  the  people 
under  his  control,  without  a  discussion  of  the  pur- 
ported revelation,  or  the  submission  of  it  to  the  voice 
of  the  people;  the  law  of  the  church  requiring  that 
"all  things  shall  be  done  by  common  consent;" 


16  ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY. 

"that  nothing  shall  be  added  contrary  to  church 
articles." 

THE    PURPORTED    REVELATION   ON    PLURAL 
MARRIAGE. 

It  is  affirmed  "That  the  revelation  on  Celestial 
Marriage,  including  the  plurality  of  wives,  given  as 
explained  on  July  12th,  1843,  bears  the  impress 
throughout  of  the  spirit  and  language  of  the  other 
and  earlier  revelations  through  Joseph  Smith,  as 
published  in  his  lifetime  in  the  Book  of  Doctrine 
and  Covenants.  It  bears  no  literary  resemblance  to 
the  revelation  contained  in  the  same  volume  given 
through  President  Brigham  Young." 

Careful  comparison  of  the  document  with  the 
revelations  of  Joseph  Smith,  published  and 
sanctioned  by  him  during  his  lifetime,  fails  to  dis- 
close a  single  feature  of  marked  identity.  Of  the 
hundred  and  eighty  revelations  claimed  to  have  been 
received  by  Joseph  Smith,  and  published  with  his 
sanction,  every  one  bears  his  plain  unassuming 
manner  of  statement,  simply  naming  the  document 
and  date  given;  i.  e.,  "Revelation  given  March, 
1829;"  "Revelation  given  April,  1829."  When  the 
revelation  contained  instruction  to  himself  or  some 
other  person,  the  statement  is,  "Revelation  to 
Joseph  Smith,  Jr.,  given  December,  1830;"  "Reve- 
lation to  Thomas  B.  Marsh,  given  September,  1830;" 
etc.  This  simple  style  uniformly  follows  in  his  work 
to  the  date  of  his  last  important  revelation  to  the 
church,  which  is  introduced  as  follows:  "Revela- 
tion given  to  Joseph  Smith,  January  19,  1841." 

The  document  referred  to  by  Joseph  F.  Smith  as 
containing  such  marks  of  identity,  reads  as  follows: 

"Revelation  on  the  Eternity  of  the  Marriage  Cove- 
nant, including  Plurality  of  wives.  Given  through 
Joseph,  the  Seer,  in  Nauvoo,  Hancock  County,  Illi- 
nois, July  12th,  1843." 

How  does  it  come  that  the  man  who  had  invari- 
ably avoided  the  use  of  special  appellations  in  refer- 
ences to  himself,  changed  all  at  once  and  wrote, 
"Given  through  Joseph,  the  Seer?" 

To  begin  with,  the  brand  of  forgery  is  written 


ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY.  17 

across  the  face  of  the  document.  Joseph  Smith's 
name  is  not  attached  as  the  receiver  of  this  docu- 
ment except  in  this  statement,  which  is  written 
without  his  consent  and  after  his  death.  The  author 
of  the  purported  revelation  is  readily  disclosed  by  a 
few  literary  comparisons.  After  the  death  ol 
Joseph  Smith,  the  factional  claimants  to  leader- 
ship in  the  church  put  forth  every  conceivable 
statement  of  Joseph  Smith,  whether  uttered  in  con- 
versation or  simple  address,  that  they  could  distort 
in  their  favor  to  strengthen  their  hold  upon  the  peo- 
ple. Brigham  Young  caused  the  publication  of  a 
number  of  these.  (See  Utah  Doctrine  and  Cove- 
nants, sections  126,  131,  136,  etc.)  Here  we  find, 
"Revelation  given  through  Joseph,  the  Seer,  in  the 
house  of  Elder  Brigham  Young,  Nauvoo,  Illinois, 
July  9th,  1841." 

This  was  printed  after  Joseph  Smith's  death.  It 
seems  to  be  the  beginning  of  the  new  order.  It  fur- 
ther reads: 

"Dear  and  well-beloved  brother  Brigham  Young, 
verily  thus  saith  the  Lord  unto  you,  my  servant 
Brigham,  it  is  no  more  required  at  your  hand^  to 
leave  your  family  as  in  times  past,  for  your  offering 
is  acceptable  to  me;  I  have  seen  your  labor  and 
toil  in  journeyings  for  my  name.  I  therefore 
command  you  to  send  my  word  abroad,  and  take 
special  care  of  your  family  from  this  time,  hence- 
forth, and  for  ever.  Amen." 

Again  we  read :  "The  Word  and  Will  of  the  Lord, 
given  through  President  Brigham  Young,  at  the 
Winter  Quarters  of  -the  Camp  of  Israel,  Omaha 
Nation,  West  Bank  of  the  Missouri  River,  near 
Council  Bluffs,  January  14th,  1847." 

Here  is  the  titled  revelator;  and  every  sentence 
discloses  the  character  of  the  man. 

The  same  marked  contrast  in  teaching  and  doc- 
trine is  prominent  all  through  the  body  of  the 
polygamous  document. 

Paragraph  1  places  Joseph  Smith  in  the  position 
of  holding  that  the  Lord  justified  Abraham,  Isaac, 
Jacob,  Moses,  and  David  and  Solomon  in  having 
many  wives  and  concubines. 


18  ORIGIN  OP  POLYGAMY. 

Joseph  Smith,  on  the  contrary,  held  and  taught 
that  God  did  not  justify  these  men  in  having  many 
wives  and  concubines.  Of  Abraham  he  wrote, 
"God  does  not  acknowledge  Hagar  as  Abram's 
wife."  (Genesis,  chapter  16,  Inspired  Translation 
of  Scriptures.)  Of  David  and  Solomon  he  taught: 
"Behold,  David  and  Solomon  truly  had  many  wives 
and  concubines,  which  thing  was  abominable  before 
me,  saith  the  Lord." — Book  of  Mormon,  Jacob, 
chapter  2.  Neither  did  he  teach  nor  believe  that 
Isaac  and  Moses  were  polygamists  in  any  sense. 
The  paragraph  is  a  gross  fraud  when  compared  with 
the  writings  of  Joseph  Smith. 

Paragraph  3  of  the  document,  represents  the  Lord 
assaying:  "All  these  who  have  this  law  revealed 
unto  them  must  obey  the  same." 

The  fair  inference  is  that  this  was  either  more 
important  than  other  laws  God  had  given,  or  else 
that  it  was  not  necessary  to  obey  other  laws. 
Joseph  Smith  taught  that  God's  ways  were  equal 
and  all  his  laws  spiritual  and  alike  unto  him : 

"Wherefore,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  that  all  things 
unto  me  are  spiritual,  and  not  at  any  time  have  I 
given  unto  you  a  law  which  was  temporal,  neither 
any  man3  nor  the  children  of  men ;  neither  Adam 
your  father,  whom  I  created;  behold,  I  gave  unto 
him  that  he  should  be  an  agent  unto  himself;  and  I 
gave  unto  him  commandment,  but  no  temporal  com- 
mandment gave  I  unto  him;  for  my  commandments 
are  spiritual;  they  are  not  natural;  nor  temporal, 
neither  carnal  nor  sensual." — Doctrine  and  Cove- 
nants 28:  9. 

Paragraph  4  states:  "For  behold!  I  reveal  unto 
you  a  new  and  everlasting  covenant." 

Joseph  Smith  taught  one  everlasting  covenant, 
and  that  this  was  already  revealed  in  1831.  (Sec- 
tions 45  and  49,  Book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants, 
1835  edition.) 

Paragraphs  15  to  19  teach  that  unless  men  and 
women  are  joined  in  wedlock  by  special  appointed 
authority,  it  is  not  by  the  decree  of  God. 

Joseph  Smith  taught  that  God's  decree  touching 
marriage  was  from  the  beginning,  and  that  not  only 


ORIGIN  OP  POLYGAMY  19 

Adam  and  Eve  were  bound  under  this,  but  their 
posterity,  and  that  no  particular  minister  or  formula 
was  necessary  to  the  sanctity  of  this  God-given  and 
holy  order  of  matrimony: 

"She  shall  be  called  woman,  because  she  was 
taken  out  of  man.  Therefore  shall  a  man  leave  his 
father  and  his  mother,  and  shall  cleave  unto  his 
wife;  and  they  shall  be  one  flesh." — Genesis 
2:  29,  30,  Inspired  Translation. 

"We  believe,  that  all  marriages  in  this  Church  of 
Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints,  should  be  solemnized  in 
a  public  meeting,  or  feast,  prepared  for  that  pur- 
pose: and  that  the  solemnization  should  be  per- 
formed by  a  presiding  high  priest,  high  priest, 
bishop,  elder,  or  priest,  not  even  prohibiting  those 
persons  who  are  desirous  to  get  married,  of  being 
married  by  other  authority." — Doctrine  and  Cove- 
nants 101,  section  on  marriage,  1835  edition. 

Paragraphs  19  and  20  of  this  document  teach  thafc 
men  may  become  gods. 

Joseph  Smith  taught  that  Christ  would  give  power 
to  those  who  received  him  "to  become  the  sons  of 
God;"  but  never  that  either  Adam  or  any  other  man 
was  God. 

Paragraph  24  states:  "This  is  eternal  lives,  to 
know  the  only  wise  and  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ, 
whom  he  hath  sent." 

Joseph  Smith  wrote:  "And  this  is  life  eternal, 
that  they  might  know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and 
Jesus  Christ,  whom  thou  hast  sent." — John  17:3, 
Inspired  Translation. 

Paragraph  39  states:  "David's  wives  and  concu- 
bines were  given  unto  him,  of  me,  by  the  hand  of 
Nathan,  my  servant,  and  others  of  the  prophets 
who  had  the  keys  of  this  power;  and  in  none  of 
these  things  did  he  sin  against  me,  save  in  the  case 
of  Uriah  and  his  wife." 

Joseph  Smith  wrote  of  David:  "But  repented  of 
the  evil  all  the  days  of  his  life,  save  only  in  the 
matter  of  Uriah  the  Hittite,  wherein  the  Lord 
cursed  him." — 1  Kings  15:5,  Inspired  Translation. 

Paragraphs  52  to  66  inclusive  are  in  word,  doc- 
trine, and  spirit  wholly  at  variance  with  any  and  all 


20  ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY. 

the  known  teachings  and  social  life  of  Joseph 
Smith,  and  contradictory  to  any  writing  or  publica- 
tion of  his  extant. 

President  Wilford  Woodruff,  of  the  Utah  church, 
before  the  Commissioner  of  the  United  States  Cir- 
cuit Court,  Salt  Lake  City,  March  16, 1892,  testified: 
"I  do  not  know  where  the  original  of  the  revelation 
called  the  polygamous  revelation  is.  I  do  not  know 
that  I  ever  saw  it.  I  do  not  believe  I  ever  did  see  it. 
I  never  saw  a  copy  of  it  or  the  original  during  the 
lifetime  of  Joseph  Smith.  I  do  not  think  I  saw  the 
one  that  came  here  to  Utah  and  purported  to  be  a 
copy  of  the  original.  I  do  not  know  whether  the 
church  of  which  I  am  the  president  has  the  pur- 
ported copy  or  not.  The  church  papers  are  in  the 
possession  of  various  parties, — the  historian  of  the 
church  has  them  more  or  less.  The  original  manu- 
scripts or  copies  of  the  original  manuscripts  are  in 
various  places.  ...  I  was  present  here  in  Salt  Lake 
City  in  August,  1852,  at  the  conference.  It  is  alto- 
gether probable  that  it  was  at  the  time  when  this 
revelation  on  polygamy  was  given  to  the  church  by 
Brigham  Young.  I  do  not  recollect  that  fact,  but  I 
presume  I  was  present.  I  have  read  the  sermons 
Brigham  Young  published  in  the  Journal  of  Dis- 
courses,— some  of  them,— they  are  in  my  library, 
and  I  presume  are  considered  correct  as  published. 
They  are  published  by  the  church  of  which  I  am 
president.  ,  .  .  Some  of  my  own  sermons  are  pub- 
lished there,  and  they  are  correct." 

Q. — "Then  on  the  15th  day  of  November,  1844,  there 
was  no  marriage  ceremony  that  governed  the  church 
as  a  church,  except  the  one  published  in  the  1835 
edition  of  the  Book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants?  Is 
not  that  a  fact,  Mr.  Woodruff?" 

,4  .—"None  that  I  know  of.  That  was  all  the  law 
on  the  question  of  marriage  that  was  given  to  the 
body  of  the  people." 

Q._«Now  I  will  ask  you,  Mr.  Woodruff,  why  the 
church  of  which  you  are  president,  in  the  publica- 
tion of  the  Book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants  in  the 
edition  of  1876,  eliminated  from  that  edition  the 
section  on  marriage  as  found  in  the  1835  edition, 


ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY.  21 

and  in  all  the  editions  of  the  Book  of  Doctrine  and 
Covenants  published  up  to  1876,  and  inserted  in 
lieu  of  that  section  on  marriage,  the  revelation  on 
polygamy,  dated  July  12,  1843?" 

A.—"I  do  not  know  why  it  was  done.  It  was  done 
by  the  authority  of  whoever  presided  over  the 
church,  I  suppose.  Brigham  Young  was  the  presi- 
dent then." 

Q. — "Now,  can  you  tell  why  the  section  on  mar- 
riage that  has  always  been  in  the  Book  of  Doctrine 
and  Covenants  up  to  that  time  was  eliminated  from 
it  and  the  other  inserted  in  lieu  of  it?" 

A. — "I  can  not  tell.  It  was  done  I  suppose  under 
the  direction  of  Brigham  Young  or  under  his 
administration.  I  can  not  state  why  it  was  done." 

Q.— "Was  it  not  because  one  was  in  conflict  with 
the  other?" 

A. — "I  do  not  know  that  I  can  state  why  it  was 
done." — Abstract  of  Evidence  U.  S.  Circuit  Court, 
pp.  308,  309. 

This  testimony  of  the  associate,  and  second  suc- 
cessor in  the  presidency  of  Brigham  Young,  dis- 
closes the  character  of  the  man  who  attempted  to 
succeed  Joseph  Smith.  In  defiance  to  the  revela- 
tions to  the  church  and  the  rights  of  the  people,  he 
stretched  forth  his  hand  against  the  holy  order  of 
marriage  that  was  approved  and  made  binding  upon 
the  entire  church  in  a  solemn  assembly  held  in  The 
Temple  at  Kirtland,  Ohio,  A.  D.,  1835,  under  the 
immediate  supervision  of  Joseph  Smith  and  tore  it 
from  its  place  in  one  of  the  sacred  books  of  the 
church. 

The  revelations  in  that  same  book  direct  the  man- 
ner of  transacting  the  business  of  the  church.  They 
state: 

"Neither  shall  anything  be  appointed  unto  any  of 
this  church  contrary  to  the  church  covenants,  for  all 
things  must  be  done  in  order  and  by  common  con- 
sent in  the  church,  by  the  prayer  of  faith."— Reve- 
lation September,  1830,  Doctrine  and  Covenants 
27:4. 

This  also  was  fully  violated  in  the  act,  in  word 
and  spirit.  It  is  the  Utah  witness  upon  the  stand, 


22  ORIGIN  OP  POLYGAMY. 

not  a  witness  called  by  the  sons  of  Joseph  Smith. 
Mr.  Woodruff  was  one  of  the  original  twelve  apos- 
tles under  Joseph  Smith.  Was  at  Nauvoo  and  had 
full  opportunity  to  know.  Was  a  free  man  until  the 
new  order  of  things  under  Brigham  Young  and  then 
he  could  know  nothing. 

It  is  asserted  by  Joseph  F.  Smith,  that  this 
polygamous  document  was  taught  to  the  apostles  in 
Nauvoo.  Here  is  one  of  the  Nauvoo  apostles  on  the 
stand;  a  witness  at  his  own  volition.  He  testifies. 
"I  never  saw  a  copy  of  it  or  the  original  during  the 
lifetime  of  Joseph  Smith."  It  could  not  have  been 
taught  to  him  if  he  never  saw  it,  or  a  copy. 

Lorenzo  Snow,  a  president  of  the  Seventy  under 
Joseph  Smith,  and  living  in  Nauvoo  in  1843  and 
president  of  the  Apostles  in  Utah  at  the  time  of  his 
testimony,  states  of  this  document: 

"I  could  not  say  whether  it  was  after  it  was  pre- 
sented here  by  Brigham  Young  to  the  church  that  I 
saw  it.  I  was  not  here  when  it  was  presented.  I  was 
in  Italy,  I  believe,  in  Italy  or  in  France.  I  had  not 
seen  it  up  to  that  time  of  course.  I  do  not  remem- 
ber where  nor  when  I  saw  it;  it  was  printed,  how- 
ever. I  never  saw  the  original,  if  that  is  what  you 
want  to  know.  I  never  saw  it  in  any  other  form 
except  in  printed  form." — Abstract  of  Evidence, 
page  319. 

The  statement  of  William  B.  Smith  and  John  E. 
Page,  apostles  at  Nauvoo,  the  former  a  brother  of 
Joseph  Smith,  denounced  the  document  in  positive 
terms  and  maintained  that  it  was  a  heresy  brought 
in  after  the  death  of  Joseph  and  Hyrum  Smith. 

Elder  James  Whitehead,  the  private  secretary  of 
Joseph  Smith,  testified: 

"I  landed  in  Nauvoo,  the  13th  day  of  April,  1842. 
I  lived  there  till  the  fall  of  1847;  I  was  engaged 
while  there  in  church  work.  I  was  the  private  sec- 
retary of  Joseph  Smith  from  early  in  June,  1842, 
until  he  was  killed  in  1844.  I  was  there  when 
he  was  killed;  I  knew  the  officers  in  the  old 
church;  I  was  a  member  of  the  church  when  I  went 
to  Nauvoo.  .  .  .  The  doctrine  of  polygamy  was  never 
taught  by  the  elders,  or  high  priests,  or  by  any 


ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY.  23 

other  person  or  persons  of  authority  in  the  ohurch, 
so  far  as  I  know  or  ever  heard  between  the  years 
1830  and  1844."— Abstract  of  Evidence,  pp.  27-29. 

The  proofs,  then,  are  not  "overwhelming  and 
beyond  honest  controversy"  that  this  thing  was 
"plainly  taught  to  the  apostles  and  other  prominent 
church  ministers  in  Nauvoo"  during  the  lifetime  of 
Joseph  Smith.  It  is,  on  the  contrary,  clear  that 
it  was  never  presented  by  Joseph  Smith  in  public 
or  private,  and  was  never  seen  by  these  men.  The 
assertions  so  freely  made  are  absolutely  false.  We 
are  aware  that  there  have  been  attempts  to  manu- 
facture history  among  certain  classes  and  make 
this  doctrine  reach  back  to  1841  and  1842,  in  order 
to  force  the  sanction  of  polygamy  upon  Joseph 
Smith.  This  was  made  apparent  in  the  outstart  of 
the  testimony  of  President  Wilford  Woodruff  when 
he  said:  "I  undoubtedly  knew  of  its  being  taught 
to  certain  individuals  at  Nauvoo  in  1841  and  1842, 
but  I  can  not  say  as  to  time  from  memory." 

But  upon  cross-examination,  he  was  compelled  to 
deny  the  statement.  The  testimony  upon  this  is 
clear : 

"Now  you  have  said  that  the  doctrine  of  plural 
marriage  was  taught  at  Nauvoo  in  1841  and  1842, 
and  I  want  to  read  this  article  or  letter  found  on 
page  939,  [of  Times  and  Seasons,]  dated  October  1, 


"  'We  the  undersigned  members  of  the  Church  of 
Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints  and  residents  of 
the  city  of  Nauvoo,  persons  of  families,  do  hereby 
certify  and  declare  that  we  know  of  no  other  rule  or 
system  of  marriage  than  the  one  published  from  the 
Book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants,  and  we  give  this 
certificate  to  show  that  Doctor  J.  C.  Bennett's  "secret 
wife  system"  is  a  creature  of  his  own  make,  as  we 
know  of  no  such  society  in  this  place,  nor  never  did.' 

"That  is  signed  by  S.  Bennett,  George  Miller, 
Alpheus  Cutler,  Reynolds  Cahoon,  Wilson  Law.  W. 
Woodruff,  N.  K.  Whitney,  Albert  Pettey,  Elias 
Higbee,  John  Taylor,  E.  Robinson,  and  Aaron 
Johnson.  Now  what  do  you  say  to  that?" 

A. — "Well,  sir,  that  is  correct,  for  we  never  did 


24  ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY. 

acknowledge  it  up  to  that  time.    No,  sir,  and  at  no 
other  time,  up  to  the  death  of  the  Prophet. 

"I  signed  the  letter  you  have  just  read.  There 
was  no  other  rule  of  marriage  acknowledged  by  the 
church  except  what  is  found  in  the  BOOK  of  Doc- 
trine and  Covenants,  the  1835  edition.  I  did  not 
know  of  any  other  rule  at  the  time,  and  if  I  did,  I 
do  not  now  recollect  it." 

Q.  —  "Now  here  is  another  certificate  that  I  want  to 
call  your  attention  to,  following  the  one  I  have  just 
read  you  on  the  same  page  and  in  the  same  column, 
it  is  as  follows: 

"  'We  the  undersigned  members  of  the  Ladies' 
Relief  Society,  and  married  females  do  certify  and 
declare  that  we  know  of  no  system  of  marriage 
being  practiced  in  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of 
Latter  Day  Saints  save  the  one  contained  in  the 
Book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants,  and  we  give  this 
certificate  to  the  public  to  show  that  J.  C.  Bennett's 
"secret  wife  system"  is  a  disclosure  of  his  own 
make.9 

"That  is  signed  by  the  following  persons:  Emma 
Smith,  president;  Elizabeth  Ann  Whitney,  coun- 
selor; Sarah  M.  Cleveland,  counselor;  Eliza  R. 
Snow,  secretary;  Mary  C.  Miller,  Lois  Cutler, 
Thirza  Cahoon,  Ann  Hunter,  Jane  Law,  Sophia  R. 
Marks,  Polly  Z.  Johnson,  Abagail  Works,  Catha- 
rine Pettey,  Sarah  Higbee,  Phebe  Woodruff,  Lenora 
Taylor,  Sarah  Hillman,  Rosanna  Marks,  and  Ange- 
line  Robinson. 

"Now  I  observe  amongst  the  names  I  have  read  to 
you,  the  name  of  Phebe  Woodruff,—  she  was  your 
wife,  was  she  not?" 


._,  sir. 

Q.—  "And  the  name  of  Sr.  Emma,  also." 
^..—  "Yes,  sir,  she  was  the  wife  of  Joseph  Smith, 
the  President  of  the  Church,  and  she  was  also  presi- 
dent of  the  Ladies'  Relief  Society.    Elizabeth  Ann 
Whitney  was  the  wife  of  Bishop  N.  K.  Whitney. 
Sarah  M.  Cleveland  was  counselor  to  Emma  Smith 
as  president    of   the    Ladies'  Relief  Society,  and 
Eliza  R.  Snow  was  the  secretary  of  this  society. 
"I  know  all  those  ladies  whose  names  appear  to 


ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY.  25 

that  certficate.  There  could  not  have  been  any  rule 
of  marriage  or  any  order  of  marriage  in  existence  at 
that  time,  except  that  prescribed  by  the  Book  oi 
Doctrine  and  Covenants,  to  their  knowledge.  They 
would  certainly  have  known  it,  and  up  to  the 
first  day  of  October,  1842,  there  was  no  such  system 
taught  or  practiced  openly  or  secretly  to  my  knowl- 
edge."—Abstract  of  Evidence,  303,  304. 

Here  is  a  positive  date  fixed  by  the  highest 
authority  of  the  Utah  church  and  one  of  the  apos- 
tles at  Nauvpo,  Illinois,  under  a  solemn  oath:  he  is 
also  at  the  time  the  chief  party  in  interest  on  the 
polygamous  side.  Beyond  this  no  man  who  is  dis- 
posed to  be  truthful  will  attempt  to  go.  This  dis- 
poses of  all  the  tales  and  stories  conjured  up  by 
Brigham  Young  and  his  immediate  followers  after 
the  death  of  Joseph  Smith,  to  make  up  history  to  suit 
their  purposes.  The  Reorganized  Church  has  been 
fully  aware  of  the  effort  made  at  this  kind  of  work, 
hence  its  open  questioning  of  any  published  account 
by  these  men  after  the  death  of  Joseph  Smith  pur- 
porting to  represent  his  views.  The  contention 
among  the  dozen  or  more  factions  which  arose  after 
his  death  was  such  as  to  compel  men  and  women  who 
wanted  the  truth,  to  take  nothing  for  facts  which 
had  a  basis  in  the  tales  of  the  times.  The  Apostle's 
advice  was  heeded  by  the  sons  of  Joseph  Smith: 
"But  refuse  profane  and  old  wives'  fables,  and  exer- 
cise thyself  rather  unto  godliness." — 1  Timothy  4:  7. 

An  example  of  the  class  of  subterfuges  referred  to 
is  found  in  the  little  booklet  issued  from  the  press 
of  "George  Q.  Cannon  &  Sons  Co.,"  Salt  Lake 
City,  entitled  " Pictures  and  Biographies  of  Brigham 
Young  and  His  Wives."  Special  pains  is  taken  all 
through  the  work  to  state  incidentally  that  such  a 
one  was  married  in  1842  or  1843,  Joseph  Smith  offici- 
ating, or  that  such  a  one  was  the  wife  of  Joseph  Smith 
in  1841  or  1842.  But  notwithstanding  the  cunning 
trick  to  sow  to  the  world  the  heresy  of  polygamy  in 
this  covert  way,  the  truth  crops  out  when  the  births 
of  the  children  are  set  out,  and  in  every  instance  the 
first  polygamous  children,  born  to  Brigham  Young, 
or  amy  one  else  of  the  Nauvoo  contingent,  occurred 


26  ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY. 

the  following  year  after  the  death  of  Joseph  Smith, 
and  no  pretension  by  any  one  that  any  such  issue 
belonged  to  him.  This  ana  other  attempted  slanders 
against  the  character  of  Joseph  Smith  fail  by  reason 
of  inconsistencies. 

THE    "NAUVOO    EXPOSITOR." 

Later,  polygamists,  Hedrickites,  and  the  Anti- 
Mormon  League,  all,  after  having  been  driven  from 
every  position  which  they  have  taken  in  their  efforts 
to  lay  the  charge  of  polygamy  at  the  feet  of  Joseph 
Smith,  have  resurrected  the  old  issues  of  the  Nauvoo 
Expositor,  and  taken  a  last  refuge  under  this  con- 
spiracy of  lies.  If  it  was  an  imposition  against 
Joseph  Smith,  and  false,  malicious,  and  vilely  slan- 
derous then,  it  is  now. 

Emma  Smith,  the  wife  of  Joseph  Smith,  William 
Marks,  president  of  the  Stake  of  Nauvoo  and  mem- 
ber of  the  High  Council,  James  Whitehead,  the  pri- 
vate secretary  of  Joseph  Smith,  all  standing  in  such 
relationship  that  the  things  charged  could  not  have 
been  true  without  their  knowledge,  ever  maintained 
that  the  claim  made  by  Brigham  Young  and  his 
associates  touching  this  document  was  absolutely 
false.  All  three  continued  residents  of  the  state  of 
Illinois  from  twenty  to  forty  years  after  the  death  of 
Joseph  Smith.  Mr.  Marks  lived  in  Northern  Illi- 
nois; Emma  Smith  (subsequently  Emma  Smith 
Bidamon)  lived  in  Nauvoo;  and  James  Whitehead 
in  Alton,  Illinois.  All  were  respected  and  honored 
where  they  lived  as  persons  of  the  highest  integrity 
and  veracity.  Their  residences  were  far  apart,  and 
they  were  not  under  bonds  to  each  other  in  any 
degree  by  relationship  or  correspondence;  and  their 
testimony  is  ever  the  same.  On  the  other  hand,  we 
have  the  unsupported  testimony  of  Brigham  Young; 
he  brought  out  a  paper  more  than  eight  years  after 
the  death  of  Joseph  Smith  and  said  to  his  followers: 

"This  revelation  has  been  in  my  possession  many 
years;  and  who  has  known  it?  None  but  those  who 
should  know  it.  I  keep  a  patent  lock  on  my  desk, 
and  there  does  not  anything  leak  out  that  should 
not." — Millennial  Star,  vol.  15,  Supplement,  p.  31. 


ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY.  27 

Mr.  Young,  however,  does  not  bring  forward  a 
single  one  of  those  persons  "who  should  know  it," 
to  whom  he  refers,  to  support  him  in  the  statement. 
One  of  the  apostles  and  a  president  of  Seventy  who 
were  with  him  in  Nauvoo  and  Salt  Lake  City,  have 
give  their  sworn  testimony,  and  neither  was  among 
those  "who  should  know  it." 

But  Mr.  Young  also  stated  in  presenting  this: 

"The  original  copy  of  this  revelation  was  burnt 
up;  William  Clayton  was  the  man  who  wrote  it 
from  the  mouth  of  the  Prophet.  In  the  meantime  it 
was  in  Bishop  Whitney's  possession.  He  wished 
the  privilege  to  copy  it,  which  Bro.  Joseph  granted. 
Sr.  Emma  burnt  the  original."—  Millennial  Star 
Supplement,  p.  30. 

William  Clayton  is  introduced  in  this;  but  for 
what?  to  prove  the  document?  The  document  Brig- 
ham  Young  had  is  admitted  not  to  be  the  one  that 
he  claimed  Clayton  to  have  written.  It  was  to 
further  excuse  the  absence  of  any  reliable  evidence 
showing  the  paper  he  had  was  the  work  of  Joseph 
Smith,  that  he  uses  this.  He  further  states:  "Sr. 
Emma  burnt  the  original." 

The  connection  to  the  slightest  degree  then,  of 
Joseph  Smith  with  this  purported  revelation 
depends  upon  the  bare  assertion  of  Brigham 
Young. 

Upon  the  publication  of  this  statement  of 
Young's,  Mrs.  Emma  Smith  Bidamon  was  inter- 
viewed at  her  home  in  Illinois,  and  her  testi- 
mony published  during  her  lifetime.  It  is  as 
follows : 

Q. — "Mrs.  Bidamon,  have  you  seen  the  revelation 
on  polygamy,  published  by  Orson  Pratt,  in  the  Seer, 
in  1852?" 

A.—  "I  have." 

Q.— "Have  you  read  it?" 

A. — "I  have  read  it,  and  have  heard  it  read." 

Q. — "Did  you  ever  see  that  document  in  manu- 
script, previous  to  its  publication,  by  Pratt?" 

A.- "I  never  did." 

Q-— "Did  you  ever  see    any  document  of  that 


28  ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY. 

kind,  purporting  to  be  a  revelation,  to  authorize 
polygamy?" 

A.— "No;  I  never  did." 

Q. — "Did  Joseph  Smith  ever  teach  you  the  prin- 
ciples of  polygamy,  as  being  revealed  to  him,  or  as 
a  correct  and  righteous  principle?" 

A.— "He  never  did." 

Q. — "What  about  that  statement  of  Brigham 
Young,  that  you  burnt  the  original  manuscript  of 
that  revelation?" 

A. — "It  is  false  in  all  its  parts,  made  out  of  whole 
cloth,  without  any  foundation  in  truth." — Church 
History,  L.  D.  S.,  vol.  3,  p.  352. 

In  February,  1879,  Mrs.  Emma  Smith  Bidamon 
gave  her  statement  for  publication  touching  Joseph 
Smith's  attitude  toward  polygamy.  She  said: 

"No  such  thing  as  polygamy,  or  spiritual  wifery, 
was  taught,  publicly  or  privately,  before  my  hus- 
band's death,  that  I  have  now,  or  ever  had  any 
knowledge  of." 

Q. — "Did  he  not  have  other  wives  than  yourself?" 

A. — "He  had  no  other  wife  but  me;  nor  did  he  to 
my  knowledge  ever  have." 

Q. — "Did  he  not  hold  marital  relation  with  other 
women  than  yourself?" 

A.-— "He  did  not  have  impropei  relations  with 
any  woman  that  ever  came  to  my  knowledge. "- 
Ibid.,  pp.  355,  356. 

According  to  the  terms  of  the  purported  revela- 
tion on  polygamy,  Joseph  Smith  could  not  have 
married  a  second  wife  without  the  knowledge  and 
consent  of  his  then  living  wife,  Emma.  This  set- 
tles that  question  then. 

The  frequent  reference  to  Joseph  Smith  and 
Emma  Smith  in  the  document  is  against  its  being 
genuine,  rather  than  in  favor.  Why  should  Joseph 
Smith's  wife,  Emma,  be  named  and  commanded  to 
give  other  women  to  her  husband?  Why  not  men- 
tion the  wife  of  Sidney  Rigdon,  B.  Young,  William 
Marks,  or  Parley  Pratt?  The  purpose  is  too  appar- 
ent on  its  face.  The  document  was  fixed  to  deceive 
those  who  had  accepted  Joseph  Smith  as  a  true 
prophet.  The  frequent  use  of  the  names  "Joseph" 


ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY  29 

and  "Emma"  is  but  another  witness  showing  its 
fraudulent  character. 

It  has  already  been  shown  that  this  man  Brig- 
ham  Young,  who  never  trusted  anybody  but  him- 
self, in  order  to  carry  out  his  purposes  deliberately 
took  from  one  of  the  sacred  books  of  the  church  in 
violation  of  the  law  of  common  consent  in  the 
church,  the  section  on  marriage,  and  forced  instead 
thereof,  without  consent  of  the  church,  this  docu- 
ment providing  for  plural  marriages.  Is  it  out  of 
reason  to  say  that  a  man  who  would  deliberately 
do  these  acts  would  not  hesitate  to  prepare  the 
documents  to  suit  his  notions  that  he  was  to  have 
inserted?  Since  the  document  so  forced  upon  the 
people  is  found  to  be  after  the  style  and  ideas  of 
Brigham  Young,  who  had  been  for  years  practic- 
ing the  evils  contrary  to  the  laws  of  the  church, 
according  to  his  own  confession,  is  it  not  a  fair  pre- 
sumption that  he  was  the  author,  rather  than  Joseph 
Smith,  whose  entire  life  and  teaching,  outside  of 
this  purported  paper,  were  wholly  adverse  to  it? 

Again,  is  it  unreasonable,  or  illogical  to  conclude 
that  a  man  who  is  engaged  in  such  evil  practices, 
and  who  does  not  hesitate  to  set  aside  the  plain 
word  of  God  when  it  stands  in  his  way  to  the  accom- 
plishment of  his  purposes,  would  deliberately  form 
a  system  to  suit  himself. 

If  the  evidence  after  having  been  carefully 
weighed,  forces  the  sons  of  Joseph  Smith  to  these 
conclusions,  is  it  not  honorable  for  them  to  express 
them  to  the  public?  Rules  of  evidence  in  this  case 
demand  that  the  original  paper  be  presented,  and 
original  records  of  the  claimed  marriages,  if  such 
thing  ever  took  place,  be  produced;  but  we  have  for 
years  given  opportunity  to  our  Utah  friends  to  pre- 
sent us  with  an  authenticated  duplicate,  and  not  a 
scrap  that  bears  the  shadow  of  evidence  have  they 
so  far  brought  forward.  If  the  mother  of  these  sons, 
Emma  Smith,  has  not  testified  truthfully,  where  is 
the  record  bearing  her  signature  showing  that  she 
consented  to  such  unholy  liaisons  on  the  part  of  her 
husband  as  mentioned  in  this  document?  President 
Woodruff  was  careful  to  state  that  they  had  the 


30  ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY. 

records.  We  have  asked  for  the  records  in 
court,  and  out  of  court,  and  demanded  the 
evidence  which  was  always  coming,  and  never 
came,  until  we  have  been  compelled  to  ques- 
tion the  honor,  integrity,  and  truthfulness  of  Brig- 
ham  Young  and  his  leading  associates,  touching  the 
introduction  of  polygamy,  and  polygamous  prac- 
tices. Before  accepting  as  truth  the  accusation  that 
Joseph  Smith  received  this  purported  revelation  and 
was  a  polygamist,  we  are  entitled  to  evidence  show- 
ing that  he  was  guilty  beyond  any  reasonable  doubt. 
But  in  the  contention  upon  the  matter,  the  prepon- 
derance of  the  testimony  is  in  his  favor;  indeed,  there 
has  not  come  under  our  inspection  anything  tending 
to  implicate  him  that  would  bear  a  fair  examination. 

The  only  persons  put  forward  by  Joseph  F.  Smith 
and  his  associates  as  witnesses  to  identify  the 
polygamous  revelation,  corroborate -the  position  that 
the  document  is  a  forgery,  if  the  testimony  is  worth 
anything  at  all.  One  is  Joseph  C.  Kingsbury,  a 
patron  of  polygamy  in  Utah,  and  the  other  Mercy 
Rachel  Thompson,  aunt  of  Joseph  F.  Smith  in  Salt 
Lake  City,  who  claimed  when  upon  the  witness 
stand  to  have  been  the  possessor  of  four  husbands, 
but  very  reluctantly  admitted  that  two  of  them 
existed  at  the  same  time.  Neither  witness  could 
give  a  single  word  from  memory  of  what  the  origi- 
nal paper  they  were  called  to  identify  contained, 
but  both  agreed  that  the  document  which  they  saw 
was  written  upon  only  one  or  two  sheets  of  foolscap 
paper.  Of  this  they  were  positive  enough. 

Mr.  Kingsbury  testified : 

"The  paper  I  copied,  I  presume  was  copied  in  an 
hour,  but!  could  not  tell  exaciiy,  of  course.  Yes,  I 
said  I  copied  the  revelation  on  one  sheet  of  paper, — 

Q.— "Now,  don't  you  know  that  you  could  not 
copy  that  revelation,  section  132  of  Exhibit  A,  on 
one  sheet  of  paper,  and  that  you  could  not  copy  i 
on  twenty  sheets  of  paper,  foolscap  or  any  other 
kind  of  ordinary  paper?" 

4._ "No,  sir,  I  do  not  know  anything  about  it. 
—Abstract  of  Evidence,  p.  342. 


ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY.  31 

Mrs.  Mercy  Rachel  Thompson: 

"I  saw  that  revelation  on  polygamy,  and  had  it  in 
my  hands,  saw  what  kind  of  paper  it  was  written  on. 
It  was  written  on  foolscap  paper.  I  do  not  know 
exactly  how  many  pages  there  were  of  it,  think  there 
was  not  more  than  one  whole  sheet,  and  I  am  as  cer- 
tain of  that  as  I  am  of  anything  I  have  testified  to, 
that  there  was  not  more  than  one  whole  sheet  of 
foolscap,  that  would  be  four  pages.  If  there  had 
been  more  than  one  full  sheet,  I  should  have  known  it. 
It  did  not  require  any  pins  in  the  paper  to  pin  it 
together,  because  when  it  was  opened  it  was  all  one 
sheet.  No,  sir,  I  can  not  mention  anything  that  was 
in  it.  I  would  not  try  to  do  that.  I  do  not  recollect 
the  first  word  nor  the  last  word .  I  think  the  last  word 
would  be  amen,  likely,  but  I  do  not  remember  it.  I 
do  not  know  that  the  name  of  Joseph  Smith  was 
signed  to  it."— Abstract  of  Evidence,  347. 

The  document  given  by  Brigham  Young  to  his 
people  consists  of  sixty-six  paragraphs,  besides  the 
heading,  covering  eleven  pages  8mo.  printed  mat- 
ter, and  would  require  hours,  if  not  a  day,  to  care- 
fully copy  by  a  fair  penman  and  to  properly 
paragraph  and  verify.  It  is  beyond  question  that  if 
the  witnesses  produced  to  prove  the  existence  of  this 

Eurported  revelation,  testified  to  the  truth,  it  is  a 
raud.    The  witnesses  described  a  different  docu- 
ment altogether. 

The  sequel  is  much  like  the  effort  made  in  the  . 
time  of  Brigham  Young  to  form  a  collection  of 
affidavits,  shaped  up  to  suit  the  purpose,  and  suc- 
cessfully contradict  Mrs.  Emma  Smith  in  her  denial 
of  ever  consenting  to  or  having  any  knowledge  of 
her  husband  marrying  a  second  wife.  The  affidavits 
of  Emily  D.  P.  Young,  and  Eliza  R.  Snow  Young, 
wives  of  Brigham  Young,  Eliza  M.  Lyman,  Lucy 
W.  Kimball,  Lovina  Walker,  William  Clayton,  et 
al.,  all  polygamists,  are  set  out  under  the  head  of 
"Plural  Marriage,"  Historical  Record  (Utah), 
pages  219  to  234,  and  the  day  fixed,  llth  May,  1843, 
when  Mrs.  Emma  Smith  faithfully  handed  over,  two 
in  one  day,  to  her  husband;  and  but  for  the  fact 
that  Joseph  Smith  during  his  lifetime  had  kept  a 


82  ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY. 

private  journal,  recording  the  transactions  of  each 
day,  Mrs.  Smith  would  seemingly  have  been  at  the 
mercy  of  these  conspirators. 

To  say  the  least,  it  was  remarkable  that  Joseph 
Smith  should  again  be  able  to  record  himself  in 
condemnation  of  polygamy  through  his  writings 
upon  an  issue  made  twenty-five  years  after  his 
death. 

His  private  journal  was  consulted  and  contained 
the  following: 

"Thursday,  the  llth  day  of  May,  1843.  At  six 
o'clock  in  the  morning  baptized  Louisa  Beeman, 
Sarah  Alley  and  others.  At  eight  o'clock  in  the 
morning  went  to  see  a  new  carriage  made  by 
Thomas  Moore,  which  was  ready  for  travel.  Emma 
went  to  Quincy  in  new  carriage.  I  rode  out  as  far 
as  Prairie.  At  ten  o'clock  in  the  forenoon  B. 
Young,  H.  C.  Kimball,  P.  P.  Pratt,  O.  Pratt,  O. 
Hyde,  W.  Woodruff,  George  A.  Smith,  John  Taylor, 
and  W.  Richards  assembled  in  council  and  voted 
that  Addison  Pratt,  Noah  Rogers,  Benjamin  F. 
Grouard  and  Knowlton  F.  Hanks  go  on  a  mission  to 
the  Pacific  Isles.  Captain  Dan  Jones  prepared  him- 
self to  take  a  mission  to  Wales;  James  Sloan  to  go 
to  Ireland;  Reuben  Headlock,  John  Cairns,  and 
Samuel  James  to  England,  and  that  Reuben  Head- 
lock  preside  over  the  church,  etc.,  be  assisted  by 
Elders  Hiram  Clark  and  Thomas  Ward.  That  the 
brothers  Cairns  go  to  Scotland.  Lucius  M.  Scoville 
go  to  England  under  the  direction  of  Bro.  Head- 
lock,  and  that  Amos  Fielding  go  immediately  to 
Nauvoo,  or  be  cut  off  from  the  church.  Also  that 
this  quorum  recommend  George  Walker  to  Presi- 
dent Joseph  Smith  as  clerk  of  the  Nauvoo  House. 
B.  Young  stated  that  Wood  worth  had  offered  the 
use  of  his  draft  for  the  Nauvoo  House  if  any  one 
would  copy  it,  but  he  had  not  time  to  comply  with 
the  request  of  the  quorum  for  a  full  draft."  The 
journal  also  states  that  Emma  Smith  "returned  from 
Quincy  the  15th  of  May." 

This  shows  beyond  a  doubt  that  Emma  Smith,  the 
first  and  only  wife,  as  she  claimed,  of  Joseph  Smith, 


ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY.  83 

was  correct  in  her  testimony  touching  this  contested 
event  of  May  11,  1843. 

Joseph  Smith  dead  testified  as  he  spoke  while 
living.  Had  he  been  permitted  to  live,  it  may 
reasonably  be  concluded,  that  polygamy  would 
never  have  triumphed  as  it  did.  The  fault  for  the 
existence  of  polygamy  then,  does  not  rest  with  him 
or  his  sons,  but  with  those  who  in  violation  of  the 
laws  of  our  country  put  him  to  death. 

Cyrus  H.  Whelock,  a  witness  called  by  President 
Woodruff,  testified : 

"Anybody  was  liable  to  be  excommunicated  or 
disfellowshiped  from  the  church  who  attempted  to 
teach  the  doctrine  of  plural  marriage  at  that  time, 
up  to  the  death  of  Joseph  Smith.  I  know  that  if  I 
had  taught  it  I  would  be  liable  to  be  excommuni- 
cated mighty  quick.'7 

"I  never  heard  of  the  ceremony  of  plural  marriage 
performed  in  Nauvoo  before  the  death  of  Joseph 
Smith."  .  .  . 

"Joseph  Smith  said  in  1844,  when  he  was  denounc- 
ing the  John  C.  Bennett  secret  wife  system,  that 
there  was  no  such  a  system,  as  that  introduced  or 
practiced  by  John  C.  Bennett,  taught  or  practiced 
m  the  church,  and  that  the  teaching  and  practicing 
of  it  would  take  people  who  practiced  it  to  hell.  He 
said  a  good  many  things,  but  I  can  not  recollect 
everything  now. "—Abstract  of  Evidence,  pp.  386,387. 

Mrs.  Bathsheba,  wife  of  George  A.  Smith,  coun- 
selor to  Brigham  Young,  also  testified  upon  this. 
She  said,  referring  to  Emma,  Joseph  Smith's  wife: 

"There  was  nobody  else  held  out  as  his  wife  while 
I  was  living  in  Nauvoo,  nor  down  to  the  time  of  his 
death.  I  was  in  Nauvoo  at  the  time  of  his  death; 
did  not  attend  the  funeral.  I  do  not  know  of  any 
member  of  the  church  having  more  wives  than  one 
at  Nauvoo,  during  the  lifetime  of  Joseph  Smith.  I 
heard  some  little  talk  not  much  before  their  death. 
I  lived  there  from  1840  up  to  the  time  he  died.  I 
never  heard  of  any  such  a  thing. 

"I  belonged  to  the  Ladies'  Relief  Society  in  Nau- 
voo. Sr.  Emma,  Joseph's  wife,  never  taught  the 
Ladies'  Society  polygamy. 


34  ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY. 

"I  heard  of  the  John  C.  Bennett  secret  wife  doc- 
trine; the  church  authorities  denounced  that  at  the 
time,  and  they  denounced  Bennett  for  that  doctrine, 
and  cut  him  off  from  the  church,  and  preached 
against  it,— preached  against  it  publicly  right  there 
in  the  city  of  Nauvoo,  at  the  time,  Joseph  Smith 
and  the  rest  of  them, — and  particularly  Joseph 
Smith,— he  denounced  him."— Abstract  of  Evi- 
dence, p.  361. 

This  shows  the  positive  attitude  of  Joseph  Smith 
to  be  uncompromisingly  against  polygamy  up  to 
the  time  of  his  death,  by  polygamists  themselves. 
That  polygamy  may  have  been  practiced  in  Nauvoo 
by  John  C.  Bennett  and  his  following,  is  admitted 
by  all  parties,  and  it  was  making  inroads  upon  the 
flock  despite  the  efforts  of  Joseph  Smith,  which 
seem  to  have  been  made  energetically  against  it, 
both  in  public  and  private. 

William  Marks,  president  of  the  stake,  and  also  of 
the  High  Council  in  Nauvoo,  in  a  letter  over  his  sig- 
nature, dated  Shabbona,  DeKalb  County,  Illinois, 
October  28,  1859,  gives  the  attitude  of  Joseph  Smith 
toward  polygamy,  just  a  few  days  before  his  death. 
He  says : 

"I  will  give  his  words  verbatim,  for  they  are 
indelibly  stamped  upon  my  mind.  He  said  he  had 
desired  for  a  long  time  to  have  a  talk  with  me  on 
the  subject  of  polygamy.  He  said  it  eventually 
would  prove  the  overthrow  of  the  church,  and  we 
should  soon  be  obliged  to  leave  the  United  States, 
unless  it  could  be  speedily  put  down.  He  was  sat- 
isfied that  it  was  a  cursed  doctrine,  and  that  there 
must  be  every  exertion  made  to  put  it  down.  He 
said  that  he  would  go  before  the  congregation  and 
proclaim  against  it,  and  I  must  go  into  the  High 
Council,  and  he  would  prefer  charges  against  those 
in  transgression,  and  1  must  sever  them  from  the 
church,  unless  they  made  ample  satisfaction.  There 
was  much  more  said,  but  this  was  the  substance. 
The  mob  commenced  to  gather  about  Carthage  in  a 
few  days  after,  therefore  there  was  nothing  done 
concerning  it."— Saints'  Herald,  1860,  vol.  1,  p.  26. 

Here  in  private  he  calls  it  a  "cursed  doctrine," 


ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY.  35 

agreeing  with  the  public  statements  testified  to  by 
Cyrus  H.  Whelock  and  Bathsheba  Smith. 

This  is  also  a  fair  refutation  in  itself  of  the  charge 
that  Joseph  Smith  was  in  polygamy.  How  could  he 
prefer  charges  against  those  in  transgression  "and 
have  them  severed  from  the  church,"  if  he  was 
himself  guilty?  Let  us  be  reasonable  despite  our 
prejudices. 

Occasionally  parties  misrepresent  the  position  oi 
the  Reorganized  Church  by  using  a  letter  written  by 
Isaac  Sheen  and  published  in  volume  1,  page  27,  oi 
Saints'  Herald,  and  claiming  from  this  that  the 
church  has  changed  positions  upon  the  question 
since  the  year  1860.  If  these  men  are  looking  for 
the  truth,  why  do  they  not  examine  the  testimony  of 
William  Marks,  found  right  on  the  opposite  page? 
William  Marks  is  a  witness  stating  what  he  knows. 
Isaac  Sheen  was  not  a  witness  in  any  sense.  He  knew 
nothing  about  the  facts  personally,  and  simply  wrote 
a  letter  arguing  the  matter,  taking  the  statement 
made  by  Brigham  Young  in  1852,  "that  the  revela- 
tion was  burnt,"  as  one  basis.  The  letter  was 
written  to  the  Saturday  Evening  Post,  October  9, 
1852,  and  published  before  Isaac  Sheen  was  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Reorganized  Church.  It  was  afterwards 
published  as  a  clipping  in  the  Saints'  Herald,  but 
shows  in  no  way  whatever  the  attitude  of  the  church 
upon  the  question,  nor  of  any  of  its  leading  officers. 

The  enemies  of  Joseph  Smith  in  Nauvoo  and  else- 
where had  an  effectual  remedy  at  hand  if  they  knew 
Joseph  Smith  had  in  any  way  violated  the  laws  of 
the  State  that  was  in  reality  as  ineffectual  to  Joseph 
Smith  as  a  like  procedure  would  have  been  to  Paul, 
had  he  brought  a  suit  for  slander  in  the  courts  oi 
Judea  or  Rome,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  he 
was  pressed  daily  with  the  most  slanderous  lies. 

The  enemies  of  Joseph  Smith  were  also  willing  to 
use  not  only  voluntary  witnesses  who  knew  any- 
thing, but  actually  suborned  witnesses  to  try  to  con- 
vict him  upon  false  accusations.  If  the  Laws, 
Higbees,  Bennetts,  Fosters,  etc.,  whom  Joseph 
Smith  had  severed  from  the  church,  knew  anything, 
they  had  ample  means  of  redress  through  the 


36  ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY. 

courts.  The  general  prejudice  against  Joseph 
Smith  and  the  "sect  everywhere  spoken  against' ' 
was  such  as  to  close  up  any  redress  to  him  through 
the  courts,  as  it  did  to  the  friends  of  Colonel  Owen 
Lovejoy,  the  Abolitionist,  who  was  shot  down  in  the 
streets  of  Alton,  Illinois.  The  very  fact  that  this 
was  not  done  by  those  who  claimed  to  have  so  much 
proof  in  the  attack  by  the  Nauvoo  Expositor,  places 
the  matter  beyond  controversy,  that  the  Expositor's 
attack  was  by  those  who  were  angry  because  they 
had  been  severed  from  the  church,  and  they  deter- 
mined to  ruin,  right  or  wrong,  the  man  who  had 
been  prominent  in  accomplishing  this. 

The  Expositor  was  issued  June  7,  1844.  Com- 
plaints had  been  filed  at  the  May  term  of  court 
against  Joseph  Smith ;  he  appeared  in  court  upon 
these  complaints  and  demanded  trial;  the  prosecu- 
tion was  not  ready  and  the  causes  were  deferred  till 
the  October  term.  Twenty  days  from  the  issue  of 
the  Expositor  Joseph  Smith  was  killed.  What 
opportunity  did  this  period  of  twenty  days*  time 
afford  him  to  prosecute  for  slander  those  who  made 
allegations  of  wrong-doing  on  his  part  in  that  paper, 
When  no  names  are  signed  to  the  articles,  nor 
specific  items  of  identification  in  the  paper  itself 
showing  who  were  responsible  for  the  slanderous 
assertions?  Those  who  now  assert  that  Joseph 
Smith  should  have  appealed  to  the  courts  for 
redress  if  he  was  slandered,  show  much  ignorance 
of  the  facts  and  the  conditions  existing  at  the  time. 

It  is  claimed  by  some  parties  that  whether  or  not 
the  doctrines  of  polygamy,  plurality  of  gods,  blood 
atonement,  etc.,  are  traceable  to  Joseph  Smith,  it 
makes  very  little  difference,  for  the  doctrine  he 
taught  was  such  as  to  lead  up  to  these  things  and 
that  these  are  tha  fruits  to  be  expected. 

This  was  the  position  taken  by  the  heathen  nations 
of  the  first  century  against  the  doctrine  taught  by 
Jesus  and  presented  by  such  great  and  good  men 
as  ^aul  and  Peter. 

Have  those  so  claiming  forgotten  the  many  stories 
and  subterfuges  circulated  by  pagan  Rome  against 
the  early  saints  or  Christians  in  order  to  bring  down 


ORIGIN  OP  POLYGAMY.  37 

the  wrath  of  the  people  and  the  condemnation  of 
the  government  upon  them?  The  martyrs  of  the 
world  are  the  results  of  pious  men  and  women 
failing  to  examine  for  themselves  the  divine 
truths  that  God's  servants  were  the  bearers  of 
to  self-righteous  and  satisfied  peoples,  who  fail- 
ing to  examine,  were  moved  with  choler  against 
these  worthy  men  and  women,  and  under  rules  of 
warfare  approved  only  by  evil-minded  men,  and 
Satan,  of  bigotry,  superstition,  and  slanderous  sto- 
ries, persecuted  unto  death.  Well  may  good  and 
true  men  blush  for  their  fellows  in  turning  over  the 
pages  of  history. 

If  Joseph  Smith's  teachings  were  bad,  true  Chris- 
tian policy  demands  that  we  stand  up  like  men 
and  point  out  the  errors  contained  therein.  We 
have  the  standard  by  which  to  try  men — the  Bible. 
Joseph  Smith  was  a  devoted  believer  in  the  Bible, 
and  was  willing  to  have  his  teachings  measured  by 
it.  But  instead  of  meeting  him  with  the  "armor  of 
God,"  "having  on  the  breastplate  of  righteous- 
ness," "the  loins  gird  about  with  truth,"  "the  feet 
shod  with  the  preparation  of  the  gospel  of  peace," 
"with  a  shield  and  helmet  of  salvation,"  "with  the 
sword  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  the  word  of  God," 
men  who  for  years  have  professed  to  be  bearing 
this  holy  armor,  have  cast  it  away  all  at  once,  and 
instead,  armed  themselves  with  the  weapons  of  vil- 
lainous falsehood  and  slander,  expecting  good  and 
upright  men  and  women  to  approve  them  in  such 
work. 

With  such  kind  of  opposition  as  this,  is  it  any 
wonder  that  the  general  reports  of  the  time  repre- 
sent the  work  begun  under  the  teachings  of  Joseph 
Smith  to  be  rapidly  gathering  strength  in  the  world? 

It  is  not  gathering  strength  by  reason  of  the  work 
of  the  Utah  church,  however,  notwithstanding  the 
circulation  of  reports;  neither  of  the  Hedrickite 
movement,  which  shows  to  be  weaker  to-day  than 
ten  years  ago;  and  herein  is  found  the  cause  of  a 
combined  attack  upon  the  Reorganized  Church, 
which  is  the  only  body  of  people  standing  for  and 


88  ORIGIN  OP  POLYGAMY. 

representing  the  principles  of  truth  and  righteous- 
ness taught  by  Joseph  Smith. 

To  hold  that  it  is  right  and  proper  to  judge  the  prin- 
ciples taught  by  Joseph  Smith  by  the  acts  of  others 
who  broke  off  from  his  teaching,  and  yet  claim  to 
believe  in  him,  would  establish  a  rule  that  would 
condemn  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  and  destroy  the  Chris- 
tian religion.  We  are  hardly  ready  to  take  such  an 
erroneous  step  as  that.  It  may  do  for  the  infidel  to 
use  against  the  Latter  Day  Saints,  and  Catholics 
and  Protestants  who  profess  adherence  to  the  Scrip- 
tures; but  ministers  of  Christ  can  not  descend  to 
using  it  against  one  another. 

"When  Jesus  was  the  preacher  it  was  easy  for  the 
Jews  to  claim  that  they  were  Moses*  disciples ;  but 
the  true  test  came  when  it  was  shown  that  "Had  ye 
believed  in  Moses,  ye  would  have  believed  in  me; 
for  he  wrote  of  me." 

Men  are  to  be  judged  by  their  teachings,  not  by 
what  life  some  other  party  may  live,  or  act  he  may 
perform. 

The  Apostle  writing  to  saints  at  Corinth,  states : 

"It  is  reported  commonly  that  there  is  fornication 
among  you,  and  such  fornication  as  is  not  as  much 
as  named  among  the  Gentiles,  that  one  should  have 
his  father's  wife." — 1  Corinthians  5:  1. 

Will  any  person  contend  that  this  was  the  legiti- 
mate result  of  the  principles  Paul  taught  at  Corinth? 
Hardly;  men  are  to  be  judged  by  their  fruits,  but 
the  true  fruit  of  a  teacher  is  not  what  some  one  else 
does,  but  the  principles  taught. 

The  betrayal  of  the  Master  by  Judas  was  not  the 
result  of  the  legitimate  teaching  of  the  Christ. 
Peter  cursed  and  swore  and  denied  the  Lord,  but 
Jesus  had  taught,  "Swear  not  at  all."  What  men 
and  women  may  do  in  their  weakness  has  nothing  to 
do  in  attesting  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  principles 
they  may  have  been  taught,  only  as  it  may  be  shown 
that  in  the  performance  of  the  act  they  carried  out 
and  conscientiously  adhered  to  such  teaching. 

What  is  the  proper  fruit  is  beautifully  explained 
by  Jesus,  Luke  6:45:  "A  good  man  out  of  the 
good  treasure  of  his  heart  bringeth  forth  that  which 


ORIGIN  OF  POLYGAMY.  39 

is  good;  and  an  evil  man  out  of  the  evil  treasure  of 
his  heart  bringeth  forth  that  which  is  evil:  for  of 
the  abundance  of  the  heart  his  mouth  speaketh." 

It  is  from  the  principles  taught,  then,  that  we  are 
to  judge;  and  it  was  from  this  standpoint  that  He 
could  say  to  the  Jews:  "If  I  say  the  truth,  why  do 
ye  not  believe  me?  He  that  is  of  God  heareth  God's 
words." — John  8:  46, 47.  What  men  may  have  done 
who  have  professed  to  believe  in  Joseph  Smith  no 
more  involves  him,  or  the  faith  that  he  taught,  than 
the  work  of  professed  Christians  on  Saint  Bartholo- 
mew's Day,  or  in  the  persecutions  of  Scotland, 
involved  Peter  and  Paul  and  the  doctrine  they 
freely  gave  their  lives  for  as  a  witness  to  its  truth. 

For  the  religious  enemies  of  Mormonism  to  read 
into  its  declarations  of  faith  parenthetical  explana- 
tions, and  suppositions  statements  as  assumed  facts, 
and  to  interweave  into  the  citations  from  its  articles 
of  faith  and  its  sacred  books  misstatements  and 
mischievous  allusions  foreign  to  the  text,  is  a  work 
unchristian  in  motive  and  false  in  argument;  and 
yet  this  is  the  method  employed  by  the  sectaries 
opposed  to  the  church  in  Utah  and  the  Reorganized 
Church  alike,  on  the  ground  that  having  common 
origin,  both  are  bad.  It  is  an  unworthy  method, 
and  can  not  succeed ;  its  animus  defeats  itself. 

To  condemn  Joseph  Smith  upon  the  testi- 
mony of  those  who  do  not  know,  but  who  assume 
that  what  is  said  of  him  is  true,  without  absolute 
proof,  is  false  in  theory  and  in  fact. 

JOSEPH  SMITH. 

LAMONI,  Iowa,  March  9,  1903. 


